Posts Tagged ‘nick cohen’

19
March 2014

Why London turns a blind eye to Russia’s adventurism

The Guardian

Threats to Russia over its actions in Ukraine are undermined by the warm welcome its billionaires continue to receive in the west.

The kleptocracies that have replaced the old Soviet empire are vulnerable, I wrote on these pages as the Ukraine crisis began. The freezing of their assets was a non-violent response to the threat to the integrity of a sovereign state that had not committed genocide or developed weapons of mass destruction; that had not threatened to invade a neighbour or provided any other casus belli beyond having a revolution against a fantastically corrupt government.

We might have threatened Putin’s elite support and made his backers realise that they had to choose between supporting Russian adventurism or holding on to their loot. I believed we had a fair idea of what their choice would have been.

Russia is exposed. Putin’s central bank estimated that two-thirds of the $56bn moved out of Russia in 2012 might have been the proceeds of crimes, bribes to state officials and tax fraud. English bankers and lawyers, British and Dutch tax havens in the Caribbean, and estate agents in Mayfair, the Cote d’Azur and Manhattan launder the loot.

Never mind asset freezes and visa bans; a vigorous investigation into immoral earnings by the European and north American authorities would have spread panic among the crime bosses. David Cameron sniffed weakness. He warned Moscow at the beginning of March that Russia would pay “significant costs” if it did not back down.

The crisis escalates today as Crimea votes on an anschluss with Russia under the eyes of Putin’s troops. The failure to date to impose sanctions on or make believable threats against Russian assets tells us much about Britain and the wider west, none of it flattering.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
24
February 2014

How to stop state terrorists: seize their assets

The Observer

The most effective method of hurting those who murder their own people is to recover the wealth they have amassed.

The guards who tortured Sergei Magnitsky at Moscow’s Matrosskaya Tishina prison, and refused to allow doctors to treat the pancreatitis that eventually killed him did not understand that they had fashioned a weapon for democracies to wield against dictatorships.

Until that moment, on 16 November 2009, all the talk of globalisation had missed one obvious fact – the wealthy could indeed move their money across national borders in ways that were once unimaginable. However corrupt a communist was in the cold war, his wealth had to stay in the old Soviet Union or in China or eastern Europe. From 1991 on, oligarchs or red princelings could hide their money where they wanted.

But the options for those who robbed or murdered their own people were not limitless. They did not stash their loot in their own countries, as a rule. They feared revolutionaries taking power and taking back the stolen goods. They could direct wealth to Russia, the new capital of global reaction. But trusting the Putin regime and Russia’s corrupt banking system and judiciary has never been wise. Instead, they wanted what oligarchs and the willing servants of dictatorial regimes have always wanted: a town house in Mayfair, an apartment in Manhattan or a villa on the Riviera, where they could be safe; and City, Swiss or Wall Street lawyers and bankers, who could protect their wealth. The democratic world was their bolt hole and pension plan.

On Thursday night, Ukrainian liberals and journalists reported that private jets were taking off from Ukraine as fears grew – and let us hope they are not groundless – that President Yanukovych and his death squads were entering their last days. The charter manifest at Kiev’s Zhulyany airport on 20 February, said one, read like a Who’s Who of Ukraine’s richest men. Which way would they head – east or west? As far as Ukraine’s planespotters could tell, they wanted to head west to countries with the rule of law and protections for private property, rather than east into the hands of the rapacious Putin and his officials.

Just like the families of Chinese communists, who store their wealth in the British Virgin Islands, when the moment of choice comes, they prefer financial security to ideological conformity. For instance, one of Ukraine’s richest men has paid more than £100m for a luxury apartment in London. We should not be surprised if such men decide to delight us with their company if the old regime falls and its unreasonable replacement takes against them.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg
10
January 2013

Are our lawyers being used by the Kremlin kleptocracy?

The Observer

Bill Browder’s successful campaign against the Russian authorities who stole his company and contributed to his lawyer’s death has landed him in an English libel court.

One of the main aims of Russian foreign policy is to stop Bill Browder. The pugnacious financier has developed a devastating way of parting Putin’s gangsters from their money. I cannot tell you how much they hate him for it.

At the instigation of Browder’s researchers in London, parliaments are passing “Magnitsky laws”, named after his lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in prison after revealing how criminals had taken $230m (£143m) from the Russian taxpayer. The US, Britain and other EU countries are considering or have already implemented a ban on entry to, and the freezing of the assets of those responsible for his detention and death, those who benefited from the conspiracy Magnitsky uncovered.

The Kremlin crime gang fears revolution. Maybe there will be a democratic uprising. Maybe a new bunch of thieves will replace the old bunch of thieves. In either event, they would want to flee abroad and enjoy their loot. Now, thanks to a novel human rights campaign, they may not be able to enjoy uncontested possession of stolen goods.

What would you do in their position? Ideally, you would want outwardly respectable people and institutions to discredit the campaign against you; to make it seem as if you were the victim of unwarranted smears. The willingness of the English law to help on these occasions has led to organisations as varied as the United Nations and the Obama White House to treat England as a global threat to freedom of speech.

Read More →

Share:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Tumblr
  • StumbleUpon
  • FriendFeed
  • NewsVine
  • Digg